The Line Biden Tries to Draw in Gaza but Cannot

Following the October 7, 2023, attacks carried out by Hamas by entering Israeli territory from Gaza, Israel's military operations in Gaza have continued. In previous articles, I mentioned the dilemmas faced by the Joe Biden administration in the US regarding this conflict process, and how Israel's maximalist orientation might turn a favorable conjuncture back against it, both domestically and internationally, potentially leading the US to set boundaries against this orientation.

In the last article, a noteworthy piece was published on this subject, which I mentioned I would address in this article. In this “opinion” piece published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2023, on behalf of US President Biden, titled “The US will not back down in the face of Putin and Hamas’s challenge,” it is evident that Biden is attempting to draw a framework not only for the Palestinian issue but also for the Ukraine issue. Although the name of Russian President Vladimir Putin appears before Hamas in the title of the article, which opens with the claim of being at a “turning point,” as all administrations do in such periods considered inflection points, the Palestinian issue, which has become everyone's primary focus today with all its intensity, naturally occupies more space in the content. In a sense, the article should be evaluated within the scope of “public diplomacy,” one of today's trendy concepts, as it targets domestic and foreign public opinion. Its simplest goal is to legitimize the US support for Ukraine and Israel, and especially its military aid, which is now being questioned even by the US domestic public.

The article written on behalf of Biden, while explaining the US stance on these conflicts, refers to history and the two world wars, stating, “When aggression in Europe goes unanswered, it does not fade away on its own,” and because the opposite is the case, such aggressions eventually “drag the US directly into it.”

Precisely for this reason, the US actually protects its own troops by supporting Ukraine or Israel when it comes to such examples of aggression and conflict. So, why the US? The answer is simple: The US is the “essential” nation. This adjective is reinforced with “the” in English, and thus the claim that there is no other nation with this quality besides the US is conveyed. The article continues by stating that this is the duty of the US and it must lead this, otherwise, the risk of conflict will spread and the cost of bearing it will increase. Therefore, “we cannot allow this to happen.” Of course, for the domestic public opinion that might feel uneasy in the face of this massive task, reassuring information is also provided, especially regarding Ukraine, which has lost more favor lately: “The US is not doing this alone.” It is stated that more than fifty countries are playing a role in efforts to support Ukraine.

With the description of “aggressor” for Putin and, more severely, “pure and unadulterated evil” for Hamas, the US positioning against them is further legitimized. The features for which the two are seen as similar are described as “fighting to wipe a neighboring democracy off the map” and “hoping for the collapse of broader regional stability and integration and to take advantage of the disorder that would follow.” On these two fronts, what is proposed and intended to be achieved is reflected as “the Ukrainian people being able to live freely and Europe continuing to be a security anchor” and “Israelis and Palestinians being able to live side by side in peace one day, with two states for two peoples.” Of course, up to this point, the familiar rhetoric prevails. What interests us more is the framework within which the Biden administration wants to evaluate the current state of the Palestinian and Gaza issues.

For the West, “Israel’s right to exist” and “not allowing anti-Semitism” are a kind of creed. In the case of the recent Gaza-centered conflict process, this manifests itself in the form of prioritizing Hamas’s October 7 terror, sometimes at the expense of taking it out of context and ignoring the history of conflict and oppression preceding it. Biden’s opinion piece follows this path, but it feels the need to maintain a balance by not neglecting to emphasize the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, even without attributing responsibility to Israel. Biden draws attention to the necessity of breaking the cycle of uninterrupted violence beyond just stopping the war today. For this, he states that it is necessary to “build something stronger” in Gaza. The ambiguity here actually points to the fact that the framework envisioned for Gaza has not yet been fully determined. This is undoubtedly closely related to the previously mentioned dilemmas of the Biden administration in this matter.

The broader regional-scale solution proposed by Biden is based on the assumptions of the classic “democratic peace” theory. It is argued that thanks to an “economic corridor” that will pass through the region with liberal arguments and connect the Indian Ocean to the Eastern Mediterranean and from there to Europe, regional economies will become more integrated, which will bring predictable markets and investments, all of which mean more employment and opportunities for the region's youth, and that Hamas spearheaded this latest crisis to destroy hopes in this direction because there is no place for Hamas’s violence and hatred in such a future.

What Biden first proposes for today on the path to a two-state solution that will accompany economic integration at the regional level is to remove Gaza from being a surface of terror, on which he again finds common ground with Israel. However, Biden also objects to the forced displacement of Palestinians there, the re-occupation of this place, its siege or blockade, or even its being trimmed in any way in favor of Israel. Moreover, it is noted that Palestinians and their desires should be at the center of the post-crisis administration in Gaza. While this is not an explicit objection to the transfer of the region to Israeli control, it can be considered a kind of caveat. For a final peace, it is also argued that the two territories of Palestine should be reunited under a single administrative structure in the form of a revitalized Palestinian Authority, aimed at a two-state solution.

It can also be seen that the Biden administration is trying to balance, albeit slightly, its inability to hold Israel responsible for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives by announcing that they are preparing to take some steps, such as visa bans for settlers involved in such acts of violence, in response to attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. While noteworthy, it is certainly insufficient.

The only difference of the Biden administration, other than crowning the Abraham Accords process inherited from the Trump era with an “economic corridor,” is its strong emphasis on a two-state solution. The Trump administration had offered Israel an almost blank check by unilaterally recognizing Israel’s decision to declare Jerusalem as its capital. The Biden administration presents a picture far from making meaningful progress on the Palestinian issue, caught between the sensitive domestic political balances it relies on at home and the liberal and humanitarian values it claims to uphold abroad, and a two-state solution that envisions a Palestinian state on one side, and unconditional military support for Israel on the other. Nevertheless, there are many reports that it is trying to limit Israel’s room for maneuver behind closed doors. There is also no doubt that it encouraged the latest ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement reached with Hamas. The US emerges as the main, if not the only, and more importantly, the power that must take responsibility, which can limit Israel in the region. Even if it is doubtful how much it intends to do so…